Is OIC's sharia messenger baroness Warsi a muslim traitor?

Take a look at a Nordic informed view on the Origin of Vikings  so to enhance your understanding of the origin of islam. Would you believe it! Brits (and many others) still believe that the Viking age started in the 790s with the conquest* of Lindisfarni. The true origin of islam is so disgusting that OIC demands its silencing, via what is now to be considered the world's most important mosque, the UN!

* Yes, 'conquest' in exactly the same meaning as Mohammed's and islam's "conquests"!

David Cameron! Islam is, from its very beginning and ideological core parasitism resting on slavery. This is why slavery is sanctioned in the Koran! This was the origin of sharia finance! Today islam sponges on Western oil money and aid. And this is why OIC is desperately whitewashing islam! Why don't you listen to this African narrative about Arabic islamic slavery, so to get courage enough to kick out Warsi and replace her with some of the many "muslims" against sharia - if you necessarily need a muslim to lead Brits!? But listen carefully, Mr Cameron! Although "The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa" is presented as a "shocking insight" it doesn't even come close to the origin of islam! The author even naively compares islam with Christianity. Pls, take a look at India's history and consider that the muslims there are either descendants to Arab-islamic slave raiders/traders and their local collaborators, or of those who submitted to islam to avoid being enslaved (also compare what Klevius has written about the Romanis, and K. S. Lal's "Muslim Slave System in Medieval India" about the import of African slaves to India by muslims through the Middle East, a trade never undertaken by India's indigenous religions due to limited contact with Africa.)! Klevius, on the other hand, who isn't a Christian and has never been and will never become, offers the only understanding/analysis of islam and its gruesome and non-comparable atrocities, that both fits its origin as well as the troublesome fact that islam today doesn't fit within Human Rights, and that islam today needs protection from its own evilness.

Islamophobia is a strange concept boosted by OIC. If you want to whitewash evil, it's a nice rethorical trick to call those who point to that evilness islamophobes! Interestingly enough, Trevor Phillips, the head of Runnymede Trust when it launched its completely flawed islamophobia campaign, has himself been accused as an islamophobic racist by former London mayor Ken Livingstone!

Is this why Warsi (who used to call pious muslims "idiots") now bawls about "islamophobia"?!

Pakistani Sayeeda Warsi, who isn't considered a real muslim by pious muslims, is now alternating in OIC's (islam's) headquarter in Jeddah Saudi Arabia and as unelected political leader in UK. Did her OIC boss order her to boost (in UK) for OIC's evil "defamation"/"blasphemy" law?! You know, the criminalization of criticism against evil islam/sharia (the worst crime ever against humanity), that OIC has been successful in UN to establish.

Also take a look at my posting: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 UK Camoron uses political Islam while denying Islam is Islam - and forbids BBC calling bin Laden & Co Islamists!Camoron acted as a typical useful political idiot when paving the way for evil islam.

Warsi received support for her general but unsuccessful election campaign from her old friend "Lord" Ahmed, a Labour peer, notorious for killing people while recklessly driving while SMS-ing for some 20mminutes, and for allegedly threatening England's Parliament with 10,000 muslim street jihadists if the Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders was allowed to enter the country that already possesses numerous medieval sharia courts ruling in the most central human rights issues around, i.e. family/girls/women etc issues were islamic sharia is the furthest from the Universal Human Rights Declaration of 1948! Warsi allegedly "welcomed Ahmed's support". Both Ahmed and Warsi can be seen to the left on the Mr X "president" pic below.

Melanie Phillips:: "There is a division between those British Muslims who are happy to live as British citizens under one law for all and thus subscribe totally to British and western values of democracy and who thus pose no threat to anyone at all, and those who want instead to live under sharia and as such are attempting to subvert Britain and the west in order to negate its democratic values and human rights and replace them by an Islamic theocracy. Yet Warsi is saying this distinction is in itself evidence of bigotry. So what does that tell us about her own views about sharia in Britain? Does the co-chairman of the Conservative Party support the encroachment of sharia – or does she want it to be resisted on the basis that as a British democrat she supports secular human rights and one law for all?"

Klevius comment: There are no "British muslims" who are happy to live as British citizens "under one law for all" except, of course, if that law is sharia. Per definition such "muslims" can't be. If you call yourself a muslim then you submit to full islam/sharia, if only just by being a silent/approving number in the Billion mass! Only those who subscribe totally to "Western" (they aren't "Western" but universal, dude!) values of democracy and Human Rights, i.e. Negative Universal Human Rights (not OIC's racist/sexist sharia "rights" in the form of OIC's Cairo declaration) thus pose no threat.But they are no real muslims either.

OIC openly declares (by adopting Cairo deckaration) it wants to implement islamic sharia (i.e. islamic infidel racism and sexist sex apartheid) instead of real Universal Human Rights (i.e. individual freedom).

Much of this happens within what has become UN's OIC mosque in the midst of New York!

In other words, if Warsi approves of OIC she also approves of islamic sharia! And if so, that would mean PM Camoron, eh Cameron, and his party approve of islamic sharia as well!? 


Black islamic supremacism non-existent in Google but abundant in US and UK!

A Google news search today on 'black supremacist' resulted in three blocks of 'white supremacist'!
Strange, isn't it when keeping in mind that both US and UK are flushed with this racist black hate mongering by ultra fascist Nation of islam, one of the worst/weirdest forms of evil islam?!

  

The concept of Negative Human Rights is the backbone of the "non-Stalin part" of the Universal Human Rights Declaration of 1948. For a definition that blows your head off take a read! Negative rights defend the individual against the collective, hence being the ultimate resort for human dignity. No wonder communists/socialists/islamists have shunned the concept - to an extent that OIC had to replace negative rights with sharia in order to fit islam.














Medieval BBC is offending non-religious people by replacing 'spiritual' with "religious" and 'natural cause' with "will of god"!


Most people on Earth aren't superstitious in the sense that they really believe in angels and monotheist gods gaming with mankind and individuals. So it's really a double insult! Firstly, somehow to assert that this kind of superstition is universal, and secondly, to monopolize language.

Btw, if you want the net's most advanced view on what it is to be a human, what consciousness is and isn't, and how the brain works, please try EMAH (the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis). It gives you a final explanation of the difference between robots and humans, as well as how to create an AI program.